 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / July 20072008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for $12k.
Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org OMG, I can just see one of those on the interstate getting knocked into the median by the draft of a big semi. The only plus I see with that tiny car is that it should be easy to find a parking spot, assuming I can make it to my destination without being run off the road. Second thought, I would much rather have a Honda Civic Hybrid than this tiny car. Gunz4me <gunz4me@somewhere.com> wrote in news:a7- dnTYinbT0oxjbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@giganews.com: >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Second thought, I would much rather have a Honda Civic Hybrid than this > tiny car. We have Stupid cars already up here in Canada. I must say, they look most utterly strange on the highway among the SUV's, like mobile phone booths. And next to a semi, like roadkill waiting to happen. I measured one of these things once to see just how much room there was between bumper and steering wheel, and I came up with forty inches. That's right, just over one yard between whatever you ran into and you. Go measure your own car. How much distance is there in that location? On my Integra, I get 70", almost double the "crumple zone". I notice the Stupid's length has been increased by a whopping 3" for the 2008 model year, this in order to to "improve safety". Sorta tells ya something, doesn't it?  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Gunz4me <gunz4me@somewhere.com> wrote in news:a7- > dnTYinbT0oxjbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 2008 model year, this in order to to "improve safety". Sorta tells ya > something, doesn't it? I paid $15G for a 2005 tC last September. May not get 40+ MPG, but it sure is a BLAST!!! I paid $1400 in 2002 for a '95 Tercel w/99,000 on it. That got 45 MPG. Wasn't as much fun as a tC, but was a nice car! >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Second thought, I would much rather have a Honda Civic Hybrid than this > tiny car. ever been to europe? they have semi's over there and /way/ more tiny cars than we have. last i heard, their death rate was not worse than ours. At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one would be better off just buying a actual coffin for $5,000 mike > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on > American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one would > be better off just buying a actual > coffin for $5,000 > > mike Actually, it is a perfect car for people in NYC. They're small enough so that you can just drive them into the elevator and park them in the corner of your cubical for the day. Jeff >> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jeff We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed. >>Actually, it is a perfect car for people in NYC. They're small enough so >>that you can just drive them into the elevator and park them in the >>corner of your cubical for the day. It's not THAT small. Almost... ;-) >We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in >NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I >think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed. In New York City, home of the "Sucker Pole" - you lock your expensive bicycle up to the "No Parking" sign, and you can come back in thirty seconds and both the bike and lock are gone. They drill out or chisel off and remove the rivet at the base that holds the pole into the sidewalk, the whole thing slides right out. And if the rivet is still there, it doesn't take much longer to remove it, but they have to have Big Brass Ones to do it in daylight hours with the bike there. --<< Bruce >>-- >>We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in >>NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > remove it, but they have to have Big Brass Ones to do it in daylight > hours with the bike there. In "Anybody's Bike Book" Tom Cuthbertson suggests all bikes weigh 50 lbs. A 20 lb bike needs a 30 lb lock, a 30 lb bike needs a 20 lb lock, and a 50 lb bike needs no lock at all! Those little "Smart" cars have been running around in Europe for 7 or 8 years, but the times that I have been there, we never saw very many of them on the road. The Mercedes name sells them to some people, but there are much better buys for better transportation in Europe, the same as there is here. If they could get the price down to $10,000, they might make a good substitute for a golf cart. (Yes, I know, the model sold here is a little different). > At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on > American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > Those little "Smart" cars have been running around in Europe for 7 or 8 > years, but the times that I have been there, we never saw very many of them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > substitute for a golf cart. > (Yes, I know, the model sold here is a little different). DiamlerBenz reportedly spent over 1,000,000,000 Euros on development of the car. But they are far from recovering their investment. So this program was much better than their merger of equals with Chrysler. Jeff >> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > Those little "Smart" cars have been running around in Europe for 7 or 8 > years, but the times that I have been there, we never saw very many of > them on the road. That was what my daughter reported when she returned from France about 6 years ago. She saw them parked and being towed, but didn't see one actually on the road. Logically, if they were parked or being towed they must have been on the road at some point... unless they were being towed from parking place to parking place. Mike Have you been to London. There are tons there. > Those little "Smart" cars have been running around in Europe for 7 or 8 > years, but the times that I have been there, we never saw very many of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > Have you been to London. There are tons there. There are two in the road I live in. Graham > At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on > American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one > would be better off just buying a actual > coffin for $5,000 > > mike Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that! Mike >> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mike Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over. Jeff >>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Don't bother me with facts; the post was funny! Really, SUVs don't throw the occupants. Unbelted occupants are in terrible danger in any vehicle. Belted occupants aren't ejected and are better protected. It's that simple. And in reality the SMART car is more crashworthy than it looks (anything is more crashworthy than a SMART car looks). But I still wouldn't consider buying one. Mike >>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive >>> on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less > dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over. suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof collapses. in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's, so domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they just did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a lawsuit settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you ask me. >>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a lawsuit > settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you ask me. SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup trucks. The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The problem was that there was no federal regulation concerning head restraints in pickup trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury that could involve head restraints in any respect liability would attach. IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks and buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger cars scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading themselves into trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles that - from a regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but were nevertheless fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you will: activists, law makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the situation isn't changing very quickly. Mike Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in this country. Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured electronic equipment for airplanes. I was told that 70% of the cost for the equipment was for legal insurance in case some lawyers sued them if their equipment was even on an airplane involved in a crash. Contingency lawsuits are not allowed in most of Europe! BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car. Wonder how it compares to the Corolla? Graybeard >>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on >>>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Mike If one does a proper search one will discover the so called roll over craze, pushed by the safety Nazis, was a ruse brought on by faulty Firestone tires used primarily on SUVs. The fact is far more cars are involved in rollover type accidents than SUVs. The fact is the majority of rollover accidents, among all types of vehicles is the result of being struck by another vehicle or running up or down a grade and not the type of vehicle. The fact is NO vehicle has a tendency to rollover. The opposite is true, if a vehicle is tipped, even up to a 45 degrees or more, it has a propensity to fall back upon its wheels. If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over every day. The fact is the center of gravity of any vehicle is somewhere just above the centerline of the drive train . On the average SUV that would be less than two inches high than the average car. The propensity of a vehicle to rollover vis a v another has more to do with its wheelbase than its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly belted passengers will escape injury or death One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years. That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in the larger safer SUVs. Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and the injury and death rate will increase again as a result. The rich will simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars, and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford On can search the Congressional record for the facts. mike > Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in > this country. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graybeard >>>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive >>>>>> on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> Mike >If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would >rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or >Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event The propensity to roll over is a function of the CG, the track (the distance between left and right wheels), not the wheelbase (the distance from front and rear wheels.) In practice, the performance of the suspension will play a significant role as well. As for the relative propensity of SUVs and trucks vs. cars, I quote form e IIHS: 3. Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles? Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. This has been true in the past and continues to be so. In 2005, 60 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 46 percent of deaths in pickups and 24 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers. Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. Light trucks are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to rollover than a lower riding vehicle. >The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle >will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type >of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly >belted passengers will escape injury or death So, A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in death than an Explorer running into a semi? If larger and heavier is invariably safer, why are car death rates only half of what they were 30 years ago when the average car was much heavier. As usual, Mike, your language and claims are imprecise and misleading. Driving around in a monster SUV may (or may not) increase your safety but it certainly increases the risk for everyone else, and not just because the mass is greater. It is the elevated ride height which is the biggest factor in increased risk to others. Well designed small cars do very well in barrier collisions. >One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks >several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted >passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years. >That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in >the larger safer SUVs. The reason that the Senate did not raise CAFE standards at that time was lobbying by the big three. If the Senate wanted to make a rational decision they would have to consider whether the reduced occupant death rate in an SUV outweighs the increased death rate in the vehicle it hits. By the way, the highway death rates do not include the skyrocketing number of little kids who get crushed by SUVs backing out of the driveway. More and more SUV drivers are finding out that an unexpected bump was their four-year-old running out to say goodbye to mommy. Goodbye mommy. >Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people >riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and >the injury and death rate will increase again as a result. As previously mentioned, the car death rate is much lower now than it was in the 1970s. And the rate in the 70s was lower than the 60s and 50s. Cars are much safer now than they used to be and they will be even safer when the SUVs start disappearing. >The rich will >simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars, >and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford If they are driving gas-guzzling cars, they will be much less of a risk to drivers of economy cars than if they are driving SUVs like they are now. There are legitimate uses for SUVs and pickups, but unfortunately most are not being used in these ways. A combination of taxes and technical restrictions could ensure that they are only purchased by people who really need them. > A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in > death than an Explorer running into a semi? Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them. A Civic being hit by an Explorer would be in trouble, but two large SUVs colliding together would be bigger trouble for the occupants than two Civics colliding together. The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car, particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus. That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have your facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in which to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for properly belted passengers As a former automotive design engineer for thirty years, that designed crumple zones for over fifteen years, I can assure you in any similar accident where two like vehicles collide head on, the larger the vehicle the more likely properly belted passengers will sustain fewer injuries and deaths. One can not defy the laws of physics. mike >> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in >> death than an Explorer running into a semi? > Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car, > particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus. >That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have your >facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >mike Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on . Most newer vehicles do very well in such tests, but ten or twenty years ago, that wasn't so. (Was that when you were designing crumple zones, Mike?) At that time, it was not uncommon for a small car to outperform a larger vehicle (and especially light trucks) in those tests. So, engineer Mike, which of these vehicles has a more effective crush zone? Which would you rather be in if you were going to hit an identical vehicle head on? http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/3844.html http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/2249.html Bonus question: Which of these vehicles is more likely to get in an accident in the first place? >>> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in >>> death than an Explorer running into a semi? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car, >> particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus. Let me put it to you this way to make it simple so that you may understand. Properly belted passengers, in five star rated larger vehicles, will have a far greater change of surviving a head-on collision between two like vehicles, than properly belted passengers, in two like five star rated smaller vehicles, in a similar crash, period. The reason being the difference in the effect of the terminal speed of the third collision, when one organs strikes ones skeleton. I told you the facts, I do not intend to argue the point, or to teach a school on the subject. I could not care less whether you chose to believe that basic principle of physics, or not. As for me personally I will not subject myself or my family to the prospect of dieing in a small car, to save a relative few dollars a year on fuel, when I can afford to buy larger safer vehicles and the fuel to run them. You may chose to do differently, but that is your choice ;) mike >>That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have >>your [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two > identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on . >Let me put it to you this way to make it simple so that you may understand. >Properly belted passengers, in five star rated larger vehicles, will have a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >difference in the effect of the terminal speed of the third collision, when >one organs strikes ones skeleton. So you have modified your original claim to specify that the larger vehicle has a 5-star rating. However, you are now stuck with arguing that a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers. Sorry, Mike, the star rating is based on the acceleration experienced by the dummy's head and chest during the crash. Are you now going to argue that even though the head experienced the same acceleration, the brain felt a bigger impact? >I told you the facts, I do not intend to argue the point, or to teach a >school on the subject. >I could not care less whether you chose to believe that basic principle of >physics, or not. Since you don't have time for the full lecture, maybe you could just answer a few yes or no questions. You don't have time to argue or teach or even to properly bottom-post your reply, but I notice you did find time to snip my citations. Let me post them back in for you. http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/3844.html http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/2249.html Let me also quote your original claim. >>>The large the vehicle the more room in which >>>to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for >>>properly belted passengers. >>>I can assure you in any similar accident where two like vehicles collide >>>head on, the larger the vehicle the more likely properly belted >>>passengers will sustain fewer injuries and deaths. One can not defy >>>the laws of physics. Now: Does a barrier impact test measure the effectiveness of a vehicle crumple zone, yes or no? Does a barrier impact approximate the effect of two identical cars colliding head-on, yes or no? Does the acceleration experienced by head and chest during a collision correlate with likely severity of injury, yes or no? Is the Chevy Avalanche larger than the Honda Fit, yes or no? Did the Chevy have higher chest and head values than the Honda in the crash test, yes or no? Was the NHTSA test governed by the laws of physics, yes or no? Is your original statement (above) false, yes or no? >As for me personally I will not subject myself or my family to the prospect >of dieing in a small car, to save a relative few dollars a year on fuel, >when I can afford to buy larger safer vehicles and the fuel to run them. >You may chose to do differently, but that is your choice ;) > >mike At your age Mike, the safest thing would be to let someone else drive. >>>That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have >>>your [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two >> identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on . > BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car. > Wonder how it compares to the Corolla? It's not comparable to the Corolla. I suggest comparing it to the Yaris, still a practical quite roomy car which is quite fuel efficient and low cost than the Smart. IMO the Smart is the dumb car as a single car. OK as a second car for the rich. The Smart is OK for two briefcase passengers in city driving, however then public transportation may be the best solution. Two people can't go grocery shopping or to the golf course with their clubs and as for highway driving I wouldn't even consider it. No spare and extra cost for a patching kit- bicycle like function. Here many companies use them and as you say initially they are attention getting so advertising on them will get attention initially. Oh they aren't $12 K with the usually desired options, in fact I doubt they ship the basic model. > Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less > dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over. All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs. Where have you been for the last hundred years? Jack >> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less >> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over. > > All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs. An SUV isn't a car. And SUVs are more likely to rollover than a car. > Where have you been for the last hundred years? For most of them, I wasn't even conceived. Jeff > Jack LOL, poor Mike Hunter... Everytime he hears about a fuel efficent vehicle it makes his stomach turn and then he goes into this "safety first bit" when his real embarassment is that he is running around in gas hog. Truth is small cars are no more dangerous...than roll-overs > At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on > American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org I'm not seeing this go anywhere useful. > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org Both, my '82 & '83 Honda Civics get better than that and they are bigger... Whoopty doo! JT > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org You spammed us before with this same subject, remember? As for the SMART car, I checked some user forums a few months ago. The engine is notoriously flimsy; the conventional wisdom is that it is good for 60-100K km. One owner got good news, though. His engine with 70+ K km appeared to be seized but on advice from a more experienced owner he loosened the alternator belt. Sure enough - it was the alternator that was seized ( a very common problem, apparently). The starter didn't have enough torque to turn the dinky diesel with a seized alternator. I sure don't want to trade in my 45-60 mpg (real world) five passenger Prius with climate control for a two passenger, noisier, thirstier, far less reliable, much more sluggish vehicle that - at present - is not even available with A/C. (Putting A/C on a 50 hp engine is not likely to be in the cards, either.) SMART cars have been a money pit for Daimler-Chrysler - can Mercedes make it pay? Mike > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org This has got to be the most bullshit troll of 'Useful Info' What the f.ck does this have to do with the world's energy balance? My son drives a TDI Jetta, so what! How safe is safe? So, one hundred posts of useless drooling involving self importance. Yet, no cognisense of the bigger picture. So human....... > Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than $12K. Eric >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > > My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than > $12K. > > Eric Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in their Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model). They said it was the worst car they have ever tested. Robert A. Cunningham > > Useful Info wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model). > They said it was the worst car they have ever tested. In what respect. It's the very best for parking. Graham >> > Useful Info wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham In what respect? Well, for starters, how about 0 to 60 MPH speed: 23 seconds! How would you like to get on a freeway onramp with those numbers?. Consumer Reports paid $22,000 for the Smart for Two in Montreal. They averaged 43 MPG. (A Prius goes for $24,000 and averages about 44 MPG). The ride is harsh and fidgety... handling is clumsy... many controls are small and confusing... inside, engine clamor fights with wind noise... CR's take: "Unless the new design is far better, buying a Smart could be unwise." Oh, one correction, I originally wrote that CR had said "it was the worst car they have ever tested." I was wrong, the actual quote was "the Canadian Smart is one of the worst cars we've tested." I apologize for the error, but it does not change my opinion of the car. Robert A. Cunningham >> Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in >> their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Graham The reliability seems truly substandard. I have occasionally lurked in SMART forums and seen threads about seized alternators (lots and lots of them), engine troubles, turbo troubles, doors jamming when hot (actually a common problem with them apparently), transmission problems.... For soft-top SMART models the motors in the Cabrio roof are notoriously troublesome and repair is shockingly expensive. 50K miles or 80K km is considered old in many circles, the way 250K miles is considered for Toyotas and Hondas. Whether that is justified or just the owners' expectations isn't clear. Mike > > "Robert A. Cunningham" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > circles, the way 250K miles is considered for Toyotas and Hondas. Whether > that is justified or just the owners' expectations isn't clear. Considering it's a Mercedes product that's very disappointing. Mercedes do actually make a small car under their own brand but don't sell that in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_A-Class Graham Waiving the right to remain silent, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said: >> > "Robert A. Cunningham" wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Considering it's a Mercedes product that's very disappointing. Mercedes cars are consistently rated as unreliable in Consumer Reports for several years in a row. Pretty much the entire model line available in the USA. SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." >Mercedes cars are consistently rated as unreliable in Consumer Reports for >several years in a row. Pretty much the entire model line available in >the USA. I seem to remember them coming in pretty near last! Waiving the right to remain silent, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> said: >>Mercedes cars are consistently rated as unreliable in Consumer Reports for >>several years in a row. Pretty much the entire model line available in >>the USA. > > I seem to remember them coming in pretty near last! Correct. SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." >Waiving the right to remain silent, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" ><DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Correct. What's totally hilarious is when you bring up that stat with a Mercedes owner, and they go into a diatribe about precision, all those features are complicated, etc... Then you point out that the just as complicated and loaded Lexus comes out at or near the top. <G> >>>>Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in >>>>their [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Graham Mercedes is well below the top on the dependability list in the USA... The top is a toss up between Toyota and Honda.. JT > Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org Well don't have to read anything about it. Since we have been telling the GM, Ford, Chrysler, New Pork and Popular Mechanics idiots for over 80 YEARS now, that ANYTHING, from a unicyle to a US Post Office double wide, that gets ANY rating of (X) MPG. for X ranging from minus infinity to plus infinity is NOT a HIGHWAY or ROAD vehicle. It's a SEARS Vehicle, MORONS. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.